Radiation, Science, and Health

Author Index to Papers and Documents

Jim Muckerheide
[bio]

Science Papers
Technical Articles
Conference Papers
Presentations
Correspondence

There has NEVER been a time when the beneficial effects of low-dose ionizing radiation were NOT known., 2002, by Jim Muckerheide, Center for Nuclear Technology and Society at WPI, Radiation, Science, and Health, Inc., Massachusetts State Nuclear Engineer, rad_sci_health@comcast.net  [PDF 530KB]
     Health and medical benefits of radon- and radium-health spas were known for centuries. After radioactivity was discovered, this link was documented.
      In 1896, a few months after Röntgen published his x-ray paper, health benefits of low-dose x-rays were demonstrated (e.g., irradiatied animals injected with lethal doses of diphtheria bacillus readily recovered); along with many reports of high-dose harm. We know now that the response described was primarily immune system stimulation. It cured and prevented diseases, especially infections and inflammations. There were many successful medical applications.
      Studies and review papers, e.g., the cover paper in “Science,” Sept 15, 1915 by A. Richards, documented the consistent and opposite physiological effects between low and high doses.
      In 1936 an NAS report discounted known stimulatory effects of low-dose radiation. This continued after WWII. Data and research showing that low dose radiation is not, can not be, harmful, and even beneficial, were simply ignored, and research defunded, by Federal agencies and their funded researchers appointed to the closed radiation protection "advisory bodies." Their various rationales were to foster fear of nuclear weapons; to respond to medical and pharmaceutical industries; and for radiation protection funding and programs.

The Health Effects of Low Level Radiation: Science, Data, and Corrective Action," by Jim Muckerheide, Sept. 1995, Nuclear News.
     "Actual scientific data on health effects from low-to-moderate doses of ionizing radiation contradict the presumed "linear, no-threshold" dose-response "model." There is a high public cost for zero health benefit to society, and the loss of nuclear science and technology contributions to humanity."

Conference Papers

Organizing and Applying the Extensive Data that Contradict the LNT., by Jim Muckerheide, March 2, 1999, Waste Management '99, Tucson AZ.
      "The identification, and organization, of radiation health effects data, is needed to effectively apply the large body of relevant, valid, scientific data. The existing data are being organized to provide an initial basis to undertake the necessary credible, rigorous, technical review needed to reassess the bases produced by ICRP, NCRP and BEIR Committees that ignore substantial data to characterize low level radiation as a hazard. Such a reassessment and reexamination of the bases for regulation has been called for by the NRC Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste¹.
    "The Radiation, Science, and Health, data source document provides extensive relevant data. It incorporates the contributions of many independent, knowledgeable, radiation scientists and public policy analysts, working in the public interest. This "Data Document" is being updated to incorporate additional significant data from existing and developing scientific sources."

Radiation Research: Biasing the Data for a Predetermined Result, by Jim Muckerheide, March 2, 1998, Waste Management '98.
     "Bias was introduced by funding to support radiation protection rather than research on radiation in       biology and health, and to assess the evidence of beneficial effects. No substantial evidence supports the LNT hypothesis. Substantial evidence contradicts it. Natural radiation levels are beneficial, perhaps even essential as doses below low background levels are detrimental. Low-doses stimulate immune functions, and are used to successfully treat and prevent cancer. However, radiation science policy has  ignored and suppressed evidence of beneficial effects and prevented confirmatory research."

Presentations
 

Correspondence